May I bump the discussion to a bit higher price range since I would like a zoom without breathing. Would someone with experience with one or both of the following two lenses please give some commentary on them other than what I am listing.

Jeffrey, I haven’t used either lens you’re considering, but I’m aware of both. I suggest you consider this:

The Angenieux is a beautiful lens and covers a wider AOV up to a long normal on Super 35 or medium close on the BMPCC4K. But with the longest focal length of 40mm, you’ll often wish you had its companion.

For about the same cost, try this one-stop satisfying meal which I feel is an ideal solution for the BMPCC4K:

If I didn’t already own the SLR Magic APO 25, 32, 50, 85mm T2.1 primes, that’s what I’d buy without hesitation today. As you know, I will be using the APO on the BMPCC4K with Option A and I have Option B when I need an even wider AOV.

The T2.9 may not be as appealing as the T2, but I’m more confident you can shoot with the T2.9 wide open than the T2 which you might close down a half or full stop anyway. Let’s say you close it ahalf stop in practice. Well the BMPCC4K goes a long way in making that T2.9 useful anyway by offering a very clean ISO 1250 which may be my most used ISO for interiors and low light. T2.9 may rarely be a limitation when shooting outdoors.

Fujinon really know how to do a PL zoom so that’s worth remembering, but the Angenieux image may have more character and that might appeal as well.

If you really don’t want or need the longer Fujinon MK, then Option A and B may be good choices.

Good luck with your decision. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this alternative.

Hi everyone, my first post in the forum. I'm a new owner of the BMPCC4K, I have a Metabones Speedbooster 0.71x, a Ronin-S with the follow focus unit and I'm struggling to decide which lens to pair with this setup (it's my first m4/3 camera, and until now I've always been a Sony shooter).My first thought was about the Sigma 18-35 (maybe with a Pro Mist attached), but I'm seeing over and over in the internet people fighting to make the combo balance on the Ronin-S and I'm a bit scared about having troubles myself.So the other choice would be the Samyang (Rokinon in American market) Cine Primes, but i fear they'll not have the same IQ of the Sigma, for what I read around (never used any of these lenses I'm talking about).My main goal will be shooting music videos, and a little bit of documentary work, and I'm looking for as much as possible a 'cinematic' look. Until now, 90% of my work is on a gimbal.Could everyone with experience with these lenses be so kind to give me some tips about this choice? It's the final piece of the equipment, my budget is almost over and I wouldn't want to miss the decision..thanks in advance!

garypayton wrote:You finally convinced me and I just bought a used olympus 12-60 mm. I will get it next week

I look forward to hearing what you think.

Well, i got the zoom and finally, today, i got the viltrox adapter (the olympus mmf series was out of reach too expensive).I'm in a mess because the iris control won't work. I tried to mount and unmount several times. The bad thing is that it's impossible to understand if the problem is the adapter or the lens, and if i don't find a solution i will have to try to send them both back.

It is the adapter, you need to use either the Olympus or Panasonic OEM FT/MFT adapters to get full iris and focus controls on BM Cameras. Used ones are available for reasonable prices, look around. I got one recently from EBay for $150.Cheers

Yep, the only adapters I will trust are the ones from Olympus or Panasonic. I have the MMF-1 and MMF-3 and both work perfectly. The adapters have electronic circuit boards inside and if these aren't made properly, then there is quite likely to be issues. And given the price differences, it's not just about communication protocols, it's also about reliability, tolerances etc.

So, can I just ask.. how much better is the video quality when using a $4000 to $25000 lens vs the Sigma 18-35 for example? The quality of the 4K video I am seeing with the Sigma is really good. Depending on the budget some of us have, is the $5K to $50K lens range basically the same sort of questionable need as that of audio recorders who spend 5K on a recorder to etch out that tiny bit more audio quality than a $500 recorder gives? Is it that noticeable that the 90% or so people seeing the video would be like.. OMG if the camera had used this 5K lens.. or 50K lens, it would have been so much better.

Because I keep seeing things like Xeen, Fujinon, etc.. and think.. should I just save up and/or take a loan for a lens like that, or just grab the 18-35 (when I can) and be content with the amazing quality it puts out.

The Sigma 18-35mm is an excellent lens. A lens for 10 times its price will not be 10 times better. The main differences of true cine lenses are rather like:- better centering, a zoom will stay dead on- smaller tolerances, no shift in image when touching the lens or applying a follow focus- possibility of shimming to stay parfocal- less breathing when changing focus- wider focus travel- witness marks which tell you the focus distance precisely- robustness- locking mount like PL

All of this produced in small numbers, since the target group is small.

That said, you can shoot a film that grabs your audience on a cellphone and you can shoot boring crap with an Alexa and Master Primes. Proven facts. Even a pro will point out to his/her neighbor which lens has been used only when he/she is bored during the first screening

I'd like to add to Uli's list, that with the high end cinema zoom lenses you often also get bigger apertures through the whole zoom range. That makes those glasses very long and heavy like 6 or 8 kg and you need much more expensive rigs to support those.

Just reading the tech specs and features of the 7.5x24 helps answer the question. It’s about many things related to operational performance and not only image quality. Happily there’s a middle ground between lenses that are sub-$1,000 and over $4,000 a pop. Although a $5,000 lens can still be a budget lens if you compare it to lenses over $10,000.

Honestly, I think it would be good to just try it out in a shop or through a rental if possible and compare to the more expensive lenses you are considering. I was ignoring the Sigma for a long time because I do not trust hyped products much, but I tried it in a shop and I just could not believe the quality of that lens.

For photography it might be a bit big for a crop sensor camera or AF might be slow or whatever (no idea about the AF speed), but the image quality and build cannot be denied and it works exceedingly well for video in super 35 or m43. It is a fantastic lens and is under priced in my opinion for what it does. I have used some primes that cost the same or more and are not as sharp or corrected for CAs at wide apertures. It could be argued that there isn't enough "character" with the lens and that it is too clinical, but I think that is a rather subjective thing that could be remedied with a Tiffen Black Pro Mist, Hollywood Black Magic, or Glimmerglass. Personally I have found that lenses with "character" such as flaring, ghosting, softness, CAs, etc. cause more of a problem for me than anything else.

I think that the ergonomics of the more expensive cine lines of lenses will be what you pay for more than the optics. This is not to say that the optics of a much more expensive cine zoom won't be better, but I don't think that the difference in optics would be enough to justify the cost difference if that is all you are worried about. Maybe rent those for special projects?

rick.lang wrote:Just reading the tech specs and features of the 7.5x24 helps answer the question. It’s about many things related to operational performance and not only image quality. Happily there’s a middle ground between lenses that are sub-$1,000 and over $4,000 a pop. Although a $5,000 lens can still be a budget lens if you compare it to lenses over $10,000.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rick,

how's your Tokina cine lens 11-16mm t 2.9 performing? I see the 11-16 t3.0 is being sold at a razonable price...

I feel it’s doing a very good job on the URSA Mini 4.6K. Still waiting for the BMPCC4K which is where I’ll use the lens the most.

My greatest concern was discovering how much it can flare when shooting toward the sun even with my matte box that only has a top flag. When I added a cardboard ‘flag’ at the side, the flare went away and the lens looked good. Some flare is attractive but you know when you find it too strong. Not sure how I’m going to solve the issue but I might try to configure something temporary until I can get a matte box that supports barn doors.

Hו, considering the lumix g 12-35 2.8 (for the the black magic 4k, should i buy mark i or ii) and the popular sigma 18-35 plus ultra metabone sb. It will be my main lense, i have also 2 cheap vintage lense.Is the sigma is much better then the lumix g without the metabone sb?What whould you buy between the two lense?Whish lense will give me better "image qulity"?Tnks!

Two videos, diff lens/settings. Both are my kids HS soccer teams, so like 1.2 hours.. but if you take a peak of both for a couple mins or so it should offer enough info, and possibly enough to offer feedback

Here is my 28mm (bit darker though):

Here is my 85mm Rokinon:

I just feel like the Rokinon, besides being closer to the action, is sharper/clearer.

I thought for some reason upping the shutter speed would reduce blur. I put the ISO to 1250 (for the night game, the first link, with 28mm), and shutter was at 120, frames at 30. With the lighting, despite the lens being a F1.8, I dont think I can put the shutter up much higher without raising ISO and causing pixelation.

Both of these were shot using a monopod (with feet) as I was at another schools stadium and had to record from bleachers.. so not enough room for tripod legs while still getting good elevation.

Two things. Firstly, I didn't think the scene shot with the 28mm was that bad compared to the 85mm. Secondly, if you shot using 4K DC1 RAW 4:1, you could shoot at much higher ISO and remove noise in Resolve (it wouldn't take all that much time if your PC is up to it). A 1TB SSD will give you 173 min of shooting time.

They’re both good, but my preference is the 85mm as you get a better sense of the players especially on the near sideline. With the 28mm the players on the far sideline are just too small for my liking.

If the copy proves to be good (it's rare to find a bad copy), you'll find this to be a very rewarding and versatile lens. While it may not be a super fast lens, it's a very finely produced lens, quite expensive in its day.

Thanks guys for the feedback. Interesting I felt the 28mm was a bit too blurry.

I am planning on shooting BRAW if it ever makes it to the camera! Thought we would have at least a beta version of it by now to play with! Curious if anyone is having random problems with it on the Ursa Mini Pro or not.

I agree that the 85mm gets in a bit closer. I tend to hope people will watch this on a 60" screen, but most will watch it on their phones.

So the Sigma will be great for most things, but in the case of sports video, the 85 seems about the best..but a few of you mentioned a bit of zoom. Is there a good 50 to 100 zoom that would be good on the BMPCC4K that works well enough in somewhat darker situations and provide zoom with no change to the video (e.g. lighter/darker as I zoom)?

If the Olympus 35-100mm f2 had a mechanical focus ring, I would have recommended it without hesitation, but unfortunately it only has fly-by-wire and is very slow to focus (takes numerous turns of the focus ring to move even slightly - a fast motorised focus attachment could work).

acidwhale wrote:Hו, considering the lumix g 12-35 2.8 (for the the black magic 4k, should i buy mark i or ii) and the popular sigma 18-35 plus ultra metabone sb. It will be my main lense, i have also 2 cheap vintage lense.Is the sigma is much better then the lumix g without the metabone sb?What whould you buy between the two lense?Whish lense will give me better "image qulity"?Tnks!

Optically, the Sigma is much better, but it has no stabilizer. While it has AF, the manual focusing is quite good, too. The stabilizer on the 12-35mm is not really great for video, though.The Sigma is heavy and with an adapter, it gets very front heavy.So, it all depends on your shooting style.

Uli Plank wrote:Optically, the Sigma is much better, but it has no stabilizer. While it has AF, the manual focusing is quite good, too. The stabilizer on the 12-35mm is not really great for video, though.The Sigma is heavy and with an adapter, it gets very front heavy.So, it all depends on your shooting style.

Thank you very much Uli Plank, why do you say the stabilizer not great for video?I understand there is differents in the stalization between Lumix i or ii . So if its nit great and i am going to use it for video. Should I buy mark i and save one hundred dollar?

I found both not really convincing (for video, photo is good). If you get the chance, compare it to the Olympus zoom with in-lens stabilization. But you can always switch it off, and then it's a good lens. The Sigma is faster, but has the longer focal range.But that said, I don't consider lens stabilization very important for my shooting style. If I want to move, I use a shoulder support or a gimbal. That's why I wrote it all depends on your shooting style.

I think like Uli says, it depends on your use.. but from all my gathering/learning, while stabilization in the lens could be handy in some situations, typically it is not something to worry about because you will generally be on a dolly, tripod, or gimbal of some sort anyway. For example, though I am waiting on the Moza Air X to be released/reviewed, I would think run-n-gun with the BMPCC4K on the Moza Air X or the Crane Lab 3 would provide plenty of stabilization to offset any worry about not having it on the lens. Plus, Resolve has a pretty solid stabilization option. If you shoot in 4K mode but only need 1080P then you can stabilize in software quite nicely. If the video is not too shaky, even using it in 4K only pushes in a little (zooms in) when keeping it in 4K.

I would opt (and plan to myself) for the better optical lens without IS than for one with it but is not as good.

Thanks Jordan. Interesting find, the SLR Magic Microprimes are a similar design to the Veydra Mini Primes, but slightly larger with 82mm filter and 95mm front rings, but the E-Mount version dies cover full frame. Now, maybe they will make a Nikon Z mount version also? The MFT versions also look promising for the new Pocket 4K, but are only currently available in wider focal lengths.

The two MFT Mount lenses will not cover anything larger than a MFT sensor, the E Mount lenses are full frame, so they could possibly be adapted to an EF mount for use with a Speed Booster. That said, a few in Nikon’s new Z Mount would be nice. Cheers

No Rick, you are correct, not with an adapter. I meant SLR Magic could make an EF version, but given the longer FFD, not likely without a complete new optical design. But, the Nikon Z is in the same shirt FFD ballpark as E and MFT, so that is more likely.Cheers

Oh, yes, could be. I think one advantage of the E-Mount is that the glass can be smaller and still project a 135 film image. As you increase the FFD, you tend to get larger elements and some of the economies of the smaller lenses are lost.

Disclosure: I'm a part timer when it comes to film cameras and technique.OK......I think the Sigma 18-35 is a fantastic lens. It is very sharp.I ran into problems with moire on my original Pocket. I think some users were using diffusion filters?The Pocket 4K gives an even cleaner HQ image I think, therefore I haven't tried my Sigma on it yet.The Sigma is pretty heavy. It's going to be front heavy on any gimbal. I found that shorter body lenses worked best on my gimbal in that longer bodies tended to slightly move as you walk, accentuating a bounce which is NOT what you want with a gimbal. The stubbier Olympus 17mm worked better, as did an SLR Magic 10mm and some small M lenses.

Chris, that is a great point. I think for me I want the Sigma for tripod mount use. I think a few eluded to some months back (cant remember which thread it was in) that a prime lens will be a lot better for run n gun and gimbal work because they are typically smaller/lighter as well as usually sharper, etc. I would love to find a good 12mm or so prime that is sharp, good in low light, etc.

I still have a lot to learn with the camera and how to operate lenses. I can typically get things to work with primes, but am < a part timer.. hobbyist at this point so havent even tried to set things up yet. Been so busy with other things in day to day that I havent even tried to use my RedKing with my BMPCC4K.. at best I am using the camera on a tripod or sometimes monopod with feet, and my 3 prime lenses (Rokinon 85mm, Canon nifty fifty or Canon 28 L). The other two EF lenses are the old DSLR kit lenses which I just dont want to use for video.

So for me, I think the Sigma should be my next lens, waiting for it to go back down to $550 like it was for a few days last year. Also thinking a 10mm to 16mm EF prime with the booster would be good, the SLR Magic seems like it might be a good option, but as said above they dont offer the EF version. I was also thinking a better quality 50mm prime would be good. The nifty is decent, but something of higher quality glass maybe?

Justin Jackson wrote:Chris, that is a great point. I think for me I want the Sigma for tripod mount use. I think a few eluded to some months back (cant remember which thread it was in) that a prime lens will be a lot better for run n gun and gimbal work because they are typically smaller/lighter as well as usually sharper, etc. I would love to find a good 12mm or so prime that is sharp, good in low light, etc.

I still have a lot to learn with the camera and how to operate lenses. I can typically get things to work with primes, but am < a part timer.. hobbyist at this point so havent even tried to set things up yet. Been so busy with other things in day to day that I havent even tried to use my RedKing with my BMPCC4K.. at best I am using the camera on a tripod or sometimes monopod with feet, and my 3 prime lenses (Rokinon 85mm, Canon nifty fifty or Canon 28 L). The other two EF lenses are the old DSLR kit lenses which I just dont want to use for video.

So for me, I think the Sigma should be my next lens, waiting for it to go back down to $550 like it was for a few days last year. Also thinking a 10mm to 16mm EF prime with the booster would be good, the SLR Magic seems like it might be a good option, but as said above they dont offer the EF version. I was also thinking a better quality 50mm prime would be good. The nifty is decent, but something of higher quality glass maybe?

The Panny Leica 13mm f/1.4 fits the bill, but is larger and more expensive than the SLR Magic 12, or 10mm Lens. The SLR Microprims are $500-600, the PL 12mm is $995 up. IQ wise, the PL 12mm is a grand lens.Cheers

Marco Langatta wrote:Hi everyone, my first post in the forum. I'm a new owner of the BMPCC4K, I have a Metabones Speedbooster 0.71x, a Ronin-S with the follow focus unit and I'm struggling to decide which lens to pair with this setup (it's my first m4/3 camera, and until now I've always been a Sony shooter).My first thought was about the Sigma 18-35 (maybe with a Pro Mist attached), but I'm seeing over and over in the internet people fighting to make the combo balance on the Ronin-S and I'm a bit scared about having troubles myself.So the other choice would be the Samyang (Rokinon in American market) Cine Primes, but i fear they'll not have the same IQ of the Sigma, for what I read around (never used any of these lenses I'm talking about).My main goal will be shooting music videos, and a little bit of documentary work, and I'm looking for as much as possible a 'cinematic' look. Until now, 90% of my work is on a gimbal.Could everyone with experience with these lenses be so kind to give me some tips about this choice? It's the final piece of the equipment, my budget is almost over and I wouldn't want to miss the decision..thanks in advance!

I've been using a bunch of different lenses with the Ronin-S, all with MB BMCC 0.64x EF Speedbooster....

But I've settled on the Canon FD 20-35/3.5. It's sharp, fast enough for gimbal (mostly I shoot at f4-5.6), doesn't change length when zoomed and is small and light. It's like three primes in one (20-24-35). Oh, and good copies are not that expensive. I use the Edmika EF mount replacement, and it works great.

For ultra wide I still keep the Tokina 11-16 handy.

For when I need to pull the camera on and off the gimbal - jumping between hand held and gimbal - I use the very useful Olympus 12-100/4 native MFT lens. Even extending the zoom a bit doesn't freak out the Ronin-S without re-balancing.